User talk:Abd: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:41, 25 March 2008

you moved quickly to remove any suggest that you are pulling OMs strings - sadly, from the recent posts on this page, the cat is out of the bag. Section31 --87.114.141.40 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am gratified to see that the first post in my fresh, clean Talk page is from a Grand Panjandrum sock. I must be doing something right. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day#User:Fredrick day. I wish I were pulling OMs strings. He'd not have been blocked.--Abd (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I am *not* filing a report on AN/I, even though this IP should be immediately blocked. Too much trouble. Not worth my time.--Abd (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you not so busy being smugly self-righteous, Abd, you might have noticed that

The matter was already being discussed on AN/I;
Both User:Fredrick day and User:87.114.141.40 were already blocked.

You are far too fond of your fantasy of being persecuted for your ideas. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just looking at those pages and missed it. The active IP account wasn't blocked a few minutes ago. Fantasy? Well, let's say that I'm old enough to know what's real and what is not. I'm not being persecuted. Have you seen any place where I claimed that I was? The diff you gave doesn't show it. This error on your part is an example of what happens here. People, like you, project what they imagine on what other people write. I have not been persecuted here. It was tried and the person attempting it (James Salsman, through some socks, starting with User:BenB4) was blocked, quickly. Don't confuse me with Jordan. He's being persecuted, and that is one very complicated question. Now, "Smugly self-righteous" is a personal attack. If you don't respond appropriately here, I will place the appropriate warning on your Talk page. Your choice. The next steps won't really be up to me.--Abd (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what you wrote above, I see that you did the block of Fd, ~~even though you didn't get the active IP, at least not yet.~~ [you did get the active IP]. Congratulations. You get some points for that. I still expect an apology for the personal attack, but ... we are judged by the balance of our deeds, may the good outweigh the bad for you.--Abd (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't see the AN/I report you mention above. The discussion on AN/I was mine, did I miss another one? Your comment is strange, regarding that. But AN/I is really far too active to follow, like the Village Pump. Part of the problem. DYK that the founder of AN later concluded it was a mistake? (I think he is incorrect, but that attention needs to be paid to how it is done so that scale does not continue to make it even more cumbersome)--Abd (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you so much Abd for your intervention against my block! Users who manage to stand up against the level of accusations I have been subjected to are rare, and I truely appreciate your support in this respect. I did not know you before I think, but I am very grateful that you have been around! Best regards. PHG (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Abd for your advice. PHG (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

(in response to your comment at Akhilleus' talkpage) Correct, you had not been on the VAV talkpage. You have, however, since showing up at the MfD, suddenly appeared at many other places in the PHG dispute, often with unhelpful language. Then, you followed the disputants into unrelated places, such as the DreamGuy WP:AE thread, and then to the talkpage of the admin that closed the thread. Looking at your contribs: Abd (talk · contribs) it seems that you spend a lot of time doing this, jumping from dispute to dispute on Wikipedia. May I suggest that you might want to spend some time actually working on articles? --El on ka 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Elonka, I find that your conduct with PHG has been tantamount to harassment, and that you are pressuring others to take strong action against him, and now against DG. Why is this your concern? You said elsewhere that you were tired of following PHG around cleaning up his messes. Why have you taken on this task? Has it occurred to you that maybe you would not be the best person for that job? From reviewing your behavior around this, it seems to me that you think that Wikipedia will fall apart if you do not stop the likes of PHG and DG. Personally. Absolutely, there is a severe problem with incivility, but additional incivility is not going to solve it.

Your description of the events is warped. For example, I did make that comment on the DG AE thread; I came across it because of looking at PHGs AE thread, where you were pushing, as I recall, for him to be blocked. From history, I saw that PHG had commented there, that is why I took a look at it. I wrote something for it, put it up, and then saw that the report had been closed. I read the closure notice and was impressed, so I congratulated the closing administrator. And then *you* responded with "less than helpful comment." I wasn't following you around at all.

As to working on articles, if I feel like it. We each do what we can, when we can. Lately, I've been working on process, it is my major interest outside. I do notice disputes, though I haven't been seeking them out, getting involved in process seems to lead to those places. And something I have noticed: you are there a lot, pushing for sanctions. To return the favor of your suggestion about working on articles, have you considered trying to help editors become more civil? Instead of trying to get them blocked or banned? --Abd (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, as with pretty much everything else that you've posted on these topics, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. You see a situation, you make a snap judgment, usually wrong, and then you start chastising people as though you have some authority to correct their behavior, even though you have completely misjudged the behavior in the first place. Some of the comments that you have been making about me have been borderline personal attacks. I am telling you now, stop it. If you persist with negative (and false) statements about my character, I will be forced to escalate this matter. --El on ka 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I would invite you to look a bit closer at the editor you are defending, Abd. Many editors and admins have spent days at a time trying to counsel him, with no lasting effect. In order to be counseled, the person being subjected to such has to actually want the counseling. If they don't, al the good intentions in the world aren't going to affect matters. I would also like to point out that I am the one who filed the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, and Elonka said very little on the page, compared to those who have since awarded each other barnstars for protecting the underdog without knowing that that particular dog has a history of biting. I would welcome any comment you may have, but I would ask that you take some time to read some of the lengthy notes surrounding DreamGuy's actions within Wikipedia; I realize they are rather extensive, but I feel that it would provide you with a fuller picture of whom you are protecting. I am aware of the ideals you are pursuing; I am just not convinced that the current subject of your passion is deserving of the effort. - - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, you probably would have been a good candidate for WP:AMA. In the criminal justice system, it is considered acceptable for one's attorneys to represent him and present his side in a biased way, helping him navigate a system that pits him adversarially against the prosecution. Here, you are simply volunteering to help defend someone, essentially being a pro bono lawyer. Yet you are criticized for it. Would a court-appointed attorney be subject to such criticism, no matter what low-life he defends? Did we fault Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran for defending O.J., despite his guilt? Would they be subject to being prosecuted themselves for their cross-examination and impeachment of the state's witnesses, because they were on the wrong side?

But Wikipedia has a different philosophy, that we're against "wikilawyering" and that, as Judge Danforth said in The Crucible, "The pure in heart need no lawyers." Well, so be it. But let me say that this system tends to disfavor the unpopular defendants, because no one wants to stick their neck out for them, even in the interests of giving them a fair defense. If we would look at it more impersonally, that these proceedings are simply a means of each side presenting its case as strongly as possible, and not as undesirable wikidrama, there might be better justice done here. But you can see from what happened to WP:AMA where the community stands. Best to pack it up and get gone, before you get lynched yourself. It's only a matter of time if you continue playing Atticus Finch. Abuv the law (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 : Abd, as with pretty much everything else that you've posted on these topics, it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. You see a situation, you make a snap judgment, usually wrong, and then you start chastising people as though you have some authority to correct their behavior, even though you have completely misjudged the behavior in the first place.  Some of the comments that you have been making about me have been borderline personal attacks.  I am telling you now, stop it.   If you persist with negative (and false) statements about my character, I will be forced to escalate this matter. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 ::If I may, I would invite you to look a bit closer at the editor you are defending, Abd. Many editors and admins have spent ''days'' at a time trying to counsel him, with no lasting effect. In order to be counseled, the person being subjected to such has to actually ''want'' the counseling. If they don't, al the good intentions in the world aren't going to affect matters. I would also like to point out that ''I'' am the one who filed the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, and Elonka said very little on the page, compared to those who have since awarded each other barnstars for protecting the underdog without knowing that ''that'' particular dog has a history of biting. I would welcome any comment you may have, but I would ask that you take some time to read some of the lengthy notes surrounding DreamGuy's actions within Wikipedia; I realize they are rather extensive, but I feel that it would provide you with a fuller picture of whom you are protecting. I am aware of the ideals you are pursuing; I am just not convinced that the current subject of your passion is deserving of the effort. - - [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 05:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
+:::Abd, you probably would have been a good candidate for [[WP:AMA]]. In the criminal justice system, it is considered acceptable for one's attorneys to represent him and present his side in a biased way, helping him navigate a system that pits him adversarially against the prosecution. Here, you are simply volunteering to help defend someone, essentially being a pro bono lawyer. Yet you are criticized for it. Would a court-appointed attorney be subject to such criticism, no matter what low-life he defends? Did we fault [[Alan Dershowitz]], [[F. Lee Bailey]], [[Robert Shapiro]] and [[Johnnie Cochran]] for defending O.J., despite his guilt? Would they be subject to being prosecuted themselves for their cross-examination and impeachment of the state's witnesses, because they were on the wrong side?
+:::But Wikipedia has a different philosophy, that we're against "wikilawyering" and that, as Judge Danforth said in [[The Crucible]], "The pure in heart need no lawyers." Well, so be it. But let me say that this system tends to disfavor the unpopular defendants, because no one wants to stick their neck out for them, even in the interests of giving them a fair defense. If we would look at it more impersonally, that these proceedings are simply a means of each side presenting its case as strongly as possible, and not as undesirable [[WP:WIKIDRAMA|wikidrama]], there might be better justice done here. But you can see from what happened to [[WP:AMA]] where the community stands. Best to pack it up and get gone, before you get lynched yourself. It's only a matter of time if you continue playing [[Atticus Finch]]. [[User:Abuv the law|Abuv the law]] ([[User talk:Abuv the law|talk]]) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)